Eisner, E. - Day, M. Ed. 2004 Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. New Jersey, USA NAEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers PDF

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.
93
On: 28 Dec 2018
Access details: subscription number
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK
Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education
Elliot W. Eisner, Michael D. Day
Questioning the Past: Contexts, Functions, and Stakeholders

in 19th-Century Art Education
Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781410609939.ch2
Mary Ann Stankiewicz, Patricia M. Amburgy, Paul E. Bolin
Published online on: 23 Feb 2004
How to cite :- Mary Ann Stankiewicz, Patricia M. Amburgy, Paul E. Bolin. 23 Feb 2004,
Questioning the Past: Contexts, Functions, and Stakeholders in 19th-Century Art Education from:
Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education Routledge
Accessed on: 28 Dec 2018
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781410609939.ch2
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT
Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms
This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.93 At: 00:40 28 Dec 2018; For: 9781410609939, chapter2, 10.4324/9781410609939.ch2
Director, Editorial: Lane Akers

Executive Assistant: Bonita D’Amil
Cover Design: Sean Trane Sciarrone
Textbook Production Manager: Paul Smolenski
Full-Service Compositor: TechBooks
Text and Cover Printer: Hamilton Printing Company
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
Copyright c 2004 by Elliot W. Eisner and Michael D. Day

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any
other means, without prior written permission of the editors and publisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
www.erlbaum.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of research and policy in art education / edited by Elliot W. Eisner,
Michael D. Day.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8058-4971-8 (case : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-8058-4972-6 (paperbound : alk. paper)
1. Art—Study and teaching—North America—History. 2. Art—Study and
teaching—North America—Research. I. Eisner, Elliot W. II. Day, Michael D.
N103.H36 2004
707 .1 073—dc22 2003025839
ISBN 1-4106-0993-6 Master e-book ISBN

2
Questioning the Past: Contexts,
Functions, and Stakeholders
in 19th-Century Art Education
Mary Ann Stankiewicz

Patricia M. Amburgy
The Pennsylvania State University
Paul E. Bolin
The University of Texas at Austin
To this day the older teachers tell of the halcyon days when Walter Smith lectured on drawing
and design, and the greatness of great men.
—Bailey, 1893, p. 6, Bailey Papers, Box 13
North American histories of 19th-century art education have most often been written for
art educators by other art educators who have been, perhaps unduly, influenced by Isaac
Edward’s Clarke’s political and economic interpretation (Soucy, 1990). Not only did Clarke
valorize Walter Smith as the great man in American art education, but he focused on public
school drawing instruction for children and technical training for industrial workers with
Massachusetts, his home state, as the wellspring.1 In Clarke’s version of the halcyon days, and
in the stories of those imbued with his interpretation, the primary context for art education
was northeastern industrial cities, the dominant function the preparation of human capital for
economic success, and the chief stakeholders the capitalists of Massachusetts. These themes
continued to color art education history through the end of the 20th century and are reflected in
this essay, a review and synthesis of major secondary sources on the history of North American
art education during the 19th century.
As in other forms of research, historians tend to find what they seek; that is, historical
research is governed by our assumptions, working definitions, and preferred metaphors. For
example, both Henry Turner Bailey (1865–1931) and Arthur Efland used a fluid metaphor
to characterize underlying structures of art education. Writing at the end of the 19th century,
Bailey quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson, describing the idea of art education falling like rain on
the mountain tops of the best minds then running down, “‘from class to class, until it reaches
the masses and works revolutions’” (p. 1). These rivers of thought had united, from Bailey’s
perspective, to form a millrace, an energetic stream that powered New England manufacturing.
For Efland (1990), streams of ideas also come together, but in harmonious confluence where the
1 The parallel in Canadian art education histories seems to be a tendency to privilege Ontario as the model, obscuring
the diversity of Canadian experiences (Pearse, 1997).
33
34 STANKIEWICZ, AMBURGY, BOLIN
effects of historical movements linger even after the movement has ceased. Bailey’s metaphor
reflects the tendency, which continued into the 20th century, for history to be plotted top-down
with a focus on the work of “great” minds, underlying beliefs in a predestined class structure
and in progress through political revolutions which should, nonetheless, affirm the rightness
of great men.
Efland’s streams, on the other hand, evoke the multiple voices and hopeful eclecticism
emerging, along with recognition of the power that ideas of race and citizenship have had on
schooling, in late 20th-century art education (Spring, 2001). As paradigms for art education
have changed, histories of art teaching and learning have taken different forms. Some historical
research in the last three decades has questioned received wisdom, probing more deeply into
the social contexts where art education has occurred, examining the functions it has been
asked to serve, and questioning the varied stakeholders who have advocated art education for
themselves or others. Rather than simply describing how the streams of thought have fallen
from mountaintops to masses, recent writers have begun to probe the landscape, the social
structures and functions of visual art education, the greatness of great men.
WHAT SOCIAL FUNCTIONS DID ART EDUCATION SERVE

CIRCA 1800–1912?
In colonial and 19th-century North America, art education served the needs of practical educa-
tion, spiritual education, liberal education, moral education, and polite or ornamental education.
Prior to colonization, indigenous peoples in North America had not conceived of an ideal art
apart from society. Both practical and ritual objects were carefully shaped, prestige denoted
and enhanced by decoration. The family was the first teacher, elders transmitting eye and hand
skills along with beliefs and rituals. Even before British and French colonists began to leave
their marks on the northeast, Catholic explorers and missionaries brought Spanish traditions
and Baroque styles to the southwest. Emigrant artists taught native apprentices to paint and
sculpt religious images that, in turn, could be used for spiritual instruction through art. Tra-
ditional hierarchies maintained the artisan status of the Spanish artist and prevented native
artisans from gaining master status until colonial domination was reduced. The Academy of
San Carlos, founded in 1781, brought neoclassical influences and European models of instruc-
tion to Mexico City, while use of indigenous materials changed styles and methods of working
taught to apprentices in what is now New Mexico (Fane, 1996; Hail, 1987; Metropolitan, 1990;
Smith, 1996).
In southwestern cities, as in the northeast, local artists offered lessons to those with time
and inclination to learn and cash to pay. Functions and definitions of art derived from European
notions of drawing as a genteel pastime and “the heroic ideals of high art” (Harris, 1982, p. 9).
These functions were often combined, so that Benjamin Franklin, for example, recommended
that youths in Pennsylvania academies receive a practical education that included everything
useful and ornamental as a means for upward mobility. Thomas Jefferson’s unrealized plan for
the University of Virginia included the fine arts with the liberal expectation that higher education
would develop innate reason, improve individual virtue and social worth, thus contributing to
the creation of a natural aristocracy. After seeing Parisian architecture and sculpture, John
Adams wrote his wife Abigail that a young country most needed the useful, mechanic arts and
should postpone study of the polite arts until his grandchildren’s generation. Polite education,
as the term was used in the early Republic, was preparation for participation in genteel society,
for displaying one’s good taste and artistic accomplishments at formal entertainments in the
gracious homes of refined ladies and gentlemen (Bermingham, 2000; Bushman, 1992; Cremin,
1980; Efland, 1990; Spring, 2001; Strazdes, 1979; Winkelman, 1990; Wygant, 1983).
2. QUESTIONING THE PAST 35
Theoretical and Rhetorical Foundations

Arguments for the value of art education varied depending on who was speaking and for whom
art instruction was intended. Political leaders, like Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams, tended to
focus on art’s value to the state and citizens. During most of the 19th century, only white male
property owners enjoyed full citizenship in the United States. Thus, it is not surprising that
much of the early rhetoric advocating art education addressed the interests of the dominant
class of “enlightened gentlemen” (Miller, 1966, p. 16). This rhetoric was rooted in the world
of the courtesy book, instructional literature originally written for Renaissance courtiers for
whom drawing was both a refined amusement and a means to develop appreciation of art
(Bushman, 1992; Strazdes, 1979).
European, British and Scottish influences contributed to the aesthetic theories of the early
Republic. A North American gentleman most likely would have agreed with the empiricist
philosopher John Locke that drawing was more useful than writing for communicating ideas,
favored the neoclassical style of Sir Joshua Reynolds, believed in Lord Kames’ theory of
aesthetic universals as standards of taste for the privileged few, and accepted the associationist
psychology of the Scotsman Archibald Alison (1757–1839). Alison argued that taste was an
emotion that connected sensations to memories, experience and environment, leading to the
exercise of imagination. These associations led one to appreciate beauty or the sublime. Thus,
exposure to great works of art was expected to improve intellect, behavior, and taste among the
better classes, lifting the elite mind from materialism to higher pursuits (Efland, 1990; Miller,
1966; Storr, 1992; Winkelman, 1990).
Between about 1790 and 1840, arguments by college presidents and student orators, speak-
ers at literary societies and mechanics’ institutes, dialogs among artists and patrons broadened
these arguments to create a discourse of aesthetic didacticism, a generalized rhetoric that pro-
posed a special connection between art and republican social order. This discourse ameliorated
American distrust of the visual arts as sensuous pleasures. Grounded in Renaissance human-
ism, aesthetic didacticism began from the belief that art making was an intellectual project
with techniques related to the highest forms of creativity. Works of art could embody and com-
municate ideals. Principles of criticism could be formulated and taught to people who would
understand and judge works of architecture, painting and sculpture, but also be able to apply
their improved critical faculties to social life. Rules governing the intellectual and technical
aspects of art making could be taught to aspiring artists with natural talent. Education, as the
primary means for individual improvement, should, therefore, include the arts as a benign
influence on the general public in a democratic society (Harris, 1982; Storr, 1992).
By the 1840s, visual art had begun to enter the discourse of educational reform. Beautifica-
tion of school buildings through painting, remodeling, and landscaping was recommended in
the northeast as a way to cultivate taste and improve behavior. The sentimental novelist, Lydia
Sigourney (1791–1865), recommended that classrooms aim for the elegance of a parlor. Few
proper parlors, however, housed blackboards or encouraged children to draw on individual
slates with powdery white chalk, schoolroom innovations that laid the practical foundation
for drawing in common school education. Drawing served a range of school subjects: in-
fant geographers were expected to develop clearer concepts of place and location by drawing
maps; future surveyors learned spatial relations through studying perspective and proportion;
geometry and beginning drawing were coterminous, as were penmanship and drawing. Object
drawing based on ideas from Pestalozzi entered the curriculum during the same period as
a means to help children observe objects accurately and acquire clearer ideas (Davis, 1992;
Dobbs, 1972; Efland, 1990; Stankiewicz, 2000, 2001; Stevens, 1995; Winkelman, 1990).
As art education was democratized, it shifted from being chiefly a concern of elite male
leaders to occupying the attentions of women and men who sought to ape their betters or
find work in growing art industries. At the same time that the emerging middle classes began
to seek art education for themselves, the upper classes perceived art education as means to
maintain their cultural authority. Genteel art education for refinement, manners and morals was
advocated by upper-middle-class women and men for their own children and for the deserving
poor, for example, single or widowed middle-class women who had fallen on hard times.
Art and design schools specifically for women were established as philanthropic enterprises
in Boston, New York, and notably Philadelphia (Chalmers, 1998a, 1998b; Korzenik, 1985;
Waller, 1992; De Angeli Walls, 1993, 1994).
Art education came to be perceived as having special benefits for young women. Ornamental
education for social display through subjects such as embroidery was most popular prior to
1815, though lists of types of fancywork and ornamental subjects could be found in catalogs
of private schools well into the century. Some writers cautioned that such accomplishments
failed to help a woman meet her responsibilities as wife and mother. Other authors, including
some ministers and women who wrote didactic novels, advice books, and treatises on female
education, positioned art as a positive moral influence. Art, they argued, naturally appealed
to woman’s sensitive nature and the study of art would better prepare her for her destiny as
wife, mother, and teacher (Cott, 1977; Douglas, 1977; Flynt, 1988; Harris, 1982; Parker, 1984;
Ring, 1983; Stankiewicz, 1982; Winkelman, 1990).
WHAT FORMS OF ART EDUCATION WERE AVAILABLE

IN NORTH AMERICA DURING THE EARLY-19TH-CENTURY
ERA OF INDUSTRIALIZATION, URBANIZATION, AND
MIDDLE-CLASS FORMATION?
Colonial North America lacked both an organized art world and systematic schooling, but as
the beginnings of industrialization and urbanization challenged Jefferson’s vision of a rural Re-
public, art education could be found in formal and informal education, through apprenticeships,
in art and design schools, and in nonpublic schools. Against the elitism of political theories
of art, the humanist rhetoric of aesthetic didacticism, the practical introduction of drawing in
service to technical literacy, and the amateurism of art in woman’s sphere, artists struggled to
secure a professional identity. Inspired by the academic ideals of Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–
1792), painters and sculptors sought to move beyond the imitative labor of portraiture and
conventions of craftsmanship, to establish a unified community with a national market, its own
critics and journals, specialized studio spaces and educational institutions. Although ambitious
North American artists throughout the 19th century regarded European study as a necessary
finish to their art education, art academies were established in the late 18th century. With other
Philadelphia artists, Charles Willson Peale (1741–1827) founded the Columbianum in 1794.
Its program of lectures and classes in drawing from casts and life was modeled on the British
Academy, but the organization faltered within its first year. Art academies were founded in
New York in 1802 and again in Philadelphia in 1805. As the artist’s status rose, belief in the
noble soul of the artistic genius contributed to conceptions of the artist as teacher and minister.
Families like the Peales, Sartains, and Weirs were recognized not only as gifted artists but
also as educators and tastemakers (Bolger, 1976; Burns, 1996; Efland, 1990; Fahlman, 1997;
Harris, 1982; Martinez & Talbott, 2000; Marzio, 1976).
Drawing Books
As American artists struggled to create their own professional communities with formal schools
for artist training and galleries and museums to display their work, an emerging middle class
sought the kinds of art education formerly available only to upper-class amateurs. This art
education was provided through new institutions such as venture schools, chartered academies
and seminaries that provided secondary education for practical life, and publicly funded school
systems. The introduction of drawing into Massachusetts’ common schools will be the focus of
a separate section below. The growth of printers and publishers created an important supporting
context for art education, providing reproductions and drawing books.
From about 1820 to 1860, more than 145 drawing books were published in the United
States. These books, written for the most part by working artists who shared a common vision
of the meaning of art and the best methods for art making, were available to almost everyone.
Prices ranged from as little as a quarter to more than twenty dollars for oversize tomes in
multiple volumes. Engraved illustrations and expensive bindings increased costs; pocket-sized,
lithographed booklets could fit almost any budget. Drawing cards also provided examples that
could be copied, usually without instructions or rules (Marzio, 1976).
Drawing books and cards were intended as practical guides to drawing with the goals of
teaching Americans how to perceive meaning in great art and beauty in nature. The goals
of the books tended to be utilitarian rather than ornamental. Although some were intended
specifically for women, the books appealed to both sexes as sources for disciplined knowledge
of drawing, as means to educate the taste of workers and consumers and thus to encourage
economic prosperity. These drawing manuals promulgated the belief that drawing was a uni-
versal language that anyone could learn. At the same time, they sought to develop a distinctly
American art with examples of northeastern landscapes, combining a universal aesthetic with
nationalism in subject matter and style (Andrus, 1977; Davis, 1992; Korzenik, 1985, 1999;
Marzio, 1976).
One of the first drawing books was John Rubens Smith’s Juvenile Drawing Book, published
in 1822. Smith (1775–1849), who would publish five different drawing manuals, immigrated
to Boston from England about 1806. Just as writing masters used examples printed on cop-
perplate for their classes as the basis for early penmanship books, so Smith used examples
prepared for his classes as the basis for his books. As artist–teachers, Smith, Rembrandt Peale
(1778–1860), John Gadsby Chapman (1808–1889), and other art crusaders brought authority
to their arguments for the importance of drawing. Their books addressed multiple audiences:
individuals seeking self-education, families, and schools. Artists like Winslow Homer (1836–
1910) and Thomas Eakins (1849–1916), whose high school art classes followed a curriculum
developed by Peale, initially developed drawing skills from copybooks. On-the-job instruction
in lithographic workshops helped Homer and other artists refine these rough skills. Would-be
artists, especially those in rural areas or who lacked later opportunities for advanced study or
apprenticeship, used drawing books as primary means of learning, remaining on the threshold
of professional competence (Barnhill, Korzenik, & Sloat, 1997; Davis, 1992, 1996; Johns,
1980; Korzenik, 1985, 1999; Thornton, 1996; Vlach, 1988).
Collegiate Art Education

Aesthetics and criticism entered the American college early in the 19th century through courses
in moral philosophy taught to seniors by college presidents and through courses in classic
language and culture. Bowdoin College established the first collegiate gallery in 1811, setting
a precedent for colleges to collect and display works of fine art and curiosities. Yale purchased
Colonel John Trumbull’s art collection in 1831, building a gallery the following year and
constructing a building for a professional art school in 1864 to 1867. Syracuse University
claimed the distinction of establishing the first degree-granting College of Fine Arts in 1873,
just a year before Charles Eliot Norton (1827–1908) was appointed Professor of Fine Arts at
Harvard. Women’s colleges introduced art history about the same time: Vassar in 1874 and
Wellesley in 1875. By the end of the 1870s, art history had become a popular fad in women’s
colleges, as well as a component of professional and liberal education for men (Efland, 1990;
Harris, 1976; Smyth & Lukehart, 1993; Stankiewicz, 2001).
Art Museums
Artists in 18th-century Boston and Philadelphia established the earliest North American picture
galleries. Exhibiting copies of European paintings along with portraits they had painted, artists
like John Smibert and Robert Edge Pine provided exemplars for aspiring artists and aesthetes.
Charles Willson Peale’s museum, opened to the public in 1782, included natural history and
fine arts with the intention of providing rational amusement to Philadelphians. After the Civil
War, wealthy citizens of New York and Boston led other cities in establishing public museums
to encourage study of the fine arts, provide examples for artisans and designers, and instruct
the public. Philadelphia’s museum was a legacy of the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in that city.
Other American museums traced the impetus for their founding to London’s 1851 Crystal
Palace exhibition and the establishment of the South Kensington Museum, today the Victoria
and Albert. The collection of casts that furnished Edgerton Ryerson’s (1803–1882) educational
museum for Upper Canada, now Ontario, in 1856 was based on this English precedent. Civic
and cultural leaders who imported European reproductions and artworks for public display thus
continued the colonialization of North America, displacing approaches to art education trans-
planted earlier with a newer British model (Alexander, 1983, 1987; Harris, 1962; Tompkins,
1973; Zeller, 1989).
WHERE AND WHEN DID ART EDUCATION ENTER PUBLIC

SCHOOLS IN NORTH AMERICA?
Cities and towns in various regions of the northern United States were, by the 1850s, formally
introducing the study of drawing into public schools. Throughout the years just prior to the
eruption of the Civil War, many forms of drawing appeared within a growing number of
public school classrooms. This swelling interest in drawing education helped to initiate the
first statewide legislation of drawing as a subject of study within the public school curriculum.
Updating statutes to take effect in the new decade, Massachusetts lawmakers ratified legislation
in December 1859 declaring that drawing, along with algebra, vocal music, physiology, and
hygiene, should be taught in public schools. With passage of this legislative act the subject
of drawing was listed specifically among permitted academic subjects that might be taught in
any public school (Belshe, 1946; Bennett, 1926; Clarke, 1885; Green, 1948; McVitty, 1934;
Stankiewicz, 2001; Wygant, 1983, 1993).
Massachusetts’ Petition for Drawing Instruction

Nearly a decade later, in June 1869, a select group of 12 individuals and 2 businesses delivered
a formal petition to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting, in part, that this legislative body
appeal to the Board of Education to report some definite plan for introducing free instruction
in drawing in all towns with more than 5,000 inhabitants. The 14 signers of this petition
had firm ties to business and textile manufacturing in Boston and the surrounding region,
but they had other ties as well. Some were linked through strong vocal and written advocacy
for substantial governmental tariffs placed on manufactured goods imported from Europe. A
number regarded commercial trade protection and teaching Americans skills in mechanical
and industrial drawing as kindred avenues for advancing the economic climate in America,
particularly in the northeast, a region that depended heavily on industrial manufacturing. Many
of the drawing education petitioners had graduated from Harvard College during the early 19th
century, and throughout their lives maintained close ties with this educational institution. In
the 1860s, eight of the 12 individuals who signed the drawing petition acted as members
of overseer committees for Harvard, helping to set policy and direction for this prominent
establishment. These petitioners were also connected by religious affiliation; many were vocal
and active Unitarians within and around Boston. Reverend Edward E. Hale (1822–1909), a
spokesman for the petitioning group, was one of Boston’s most prominent Unitarian ministers.
Overlapping business, political, educational, and religious beliefs and activities appear to have
motivated these petitioners to spearhead the industrial drawing movement in Massachusetts
(Bolin, 1985, 1986; Efland, 1983, 1985b, 1990; Saunders, 1976).
Massachusetts lawmakers quickly heeded the petitioners’ request for an investigation into
the promotion of publicly supported drawing education within the state. In June 1869, legisla-
tors endorsed a Resolve that the State Board of Education explore the feasibility of legislating
instruction in mechanical drawing within public schools of larger cities. At the conclusion of
the legislative session, the Board of Education undertook efforts to carry out the lawmakers’
request. A Special Committee on Drawing, consisting of three members of the Massachusetts
Board of Education and Board Secretary Joseph White, worked throughout the fall and winter
of 1869 and into the spring of 1870 gathering information and insight on drawing education
offered from interested citizens throughout the state of Massachusetts. The Special Committee
on Drawing received a wide range of responses from concerned individuals about the purposes
and practices of drawing in public schools and the suitability of enacting drawing education
legislation. In the spring of 1870, the Massachusetts Board of Education unanimously for-
warded to the legislature a formal recommendation to require the teaching of elementary and
free hand drawing in all public schools of the commonwealth (Bolin, 1986, 1990).
Institutionalizing Drawing Instruction

With passage of the Act Relating to Free Instruction in Drawing, signed into law on May 16,
1870, Massachusetts became the first state to mandate drawing education as part of the public
school curriculum. The next step was to find a director for drawing as recommended by the
educational and drawing experts consulted earlier. The Committee investigated individuals
within the United States who could possibly administer the drawing program for Boston,
but made a decision to hire an art master from across the Atlantic. Charles Callahan Perkins
(1823–1886), a wealthy Bostonian knowledgeable in the arts, who had traveled extensively in
Europe, was asked to recommend a person to fill this position. Perkins suggested the School
Committee contact Sir Henry Cole, director of the South Kensington School in London, and
ask him to nominate graduates of his National Art Training School. Cole recommended Walter
Smith (1836–1886) who was then directing the Art School at Leeds (Billings, 1987; Bolin,
1990, 1995; Chalmers, 2000a; Efland & Soucy, 1991; Korzenik, 1985; Stankiewicz, 2001).
In October 1871, Walter Smith arrived in Boston, with his family, and commenced his
professional work in Massachusetts as both the State Director of Art Education and the Director
of Drawing for the Public Schools of Boston. In his dual positions, Smith showed himself to be
an individual of tremendous dedication and energy, who throughout his tenure spoke and wrote
zealously on behalf of drawing education. Smith was both explicit and adamant regarding the
type of drawing that should be taught, and for what purpose this subject ought to make its
way into public school classrooms. Industrial drawing was distinguished from ornamental and
professional branches by its importance as a factor in trades and manufactures. Furthermore,
Smith believed that all children of normal intelligence could learn to draw and that, in the
lower grades, drawing should be taught by regular instructors, not specialists. One of Smith’s
challenges was providing clear and precise lessons that teachers without art training could
present successfully (Belshe, 1946; Chalmers, 2000a; Clarke, 1885; Dean, 1923/24; Efland,
1990; Eisner, 1972; Green, 1948, 1966; Haney, 1908; Marzio, 1976; Sheath, 1982; Wygant,
1983).
Massachusetts Normal Art School

Smith worked unwaveringly throughout his tenure in Massachusetts to achieve his goals,
soon realizing that a teacher education facility with a focus on drawing instruction needed
to be established. Serious discussions with the legislature regarding the founding of a school
for the preparation of art teachers were initiated in the spring of 1872. The Massachusetts
Normal Art School (MNAS) began operations on November 6, 1873, in Boston, with Smith
taking the reins as school principal in addition to his responsibilities as state agent and city
supervisor for industrial drawing. During Smith’s nine years as director of the MNAS, hundreds
of students passed through its doors. Many graduates and certificate holders supervised drawing
in neighboring states, disseminating Smith’s methods throughout the northeast and into eastern
Canada. In addition, Smith traveled throughout the northeastern United States and eastern
Canadian Provinces talking to multitudes of educators, citizen groups, and lawmakers about
his purposes and practices of drawing education, inscribing his mark on many of these locations
(Chalmers, 1985a, 1985b, 1990, 2000a; Efland, 1990; Stirling, 1997; Wood & Soucy, 1990).
Walter Smith’s Departure

Throughout Walter Smith’s time in Massachusetts, there was open tension and confrontation
between Smith and various others. These disputes reached a climax in the early 1880s. In a
vote taken by the Boston School Committee on April 26, 1881, Henry Hitchings (d. 1902), art
teacher at the English High School in Boston, was elected to replace Walter Smith as Director
of Drawing for the Boston Public Schools. Little more than a year later, in early July 1882, the
Board of Education voted to dismiss Walter Smith from his dual positions as State Director of
Art Education and Principal of the Massachusetts Normal Art School. Much speculation has
occurred regarding reasons for Walter Smith’s dismissal from his three professional positions
in Massachusetts, but the precise motivations for his removal are not known. Were the key
factors Smith’s bitter and open controversies with competing authors and publishers of drawing
textbooks, Smith’s “old fashioned” and demanding teaching methods, personality conflicts that
took place between Smith and those around him, nationality and denominational conflicts, or a
squabble that occurred over the cost of the building rented to house the Massachusetts Normal
Art School? No conclusive explanations have been given (Chalmers, 2000a; Dean, 1923/24;
Efland, 1990; Green, 1948, 1966; Korzenik, 1985; Smith, 1992).
Industrial Drawing Textbooks and Controversies

The production and dissemination of printed materials to teach drawing expanded tremen-
dously in the second half of the 19th century. Fueled by technological printing developments,
including the invention of chromolithography, and by a burgeoning education market within
and outside of school, authors and publishers of drawing textbooks, drawing cards and other
instructional drawing materials vied for sales. By the outbreak of the Civil War, 35 book
companies had published drawing manuals, and were attempting to sell their books to public
schools throughout the eastern United States (Marzio, 1976, 1979; Stankiewicz, 1985).
Woolworth, Ainsworth, and Company began publishing William Bartholomew’s draw-
ing books in 1868, although Bartholomew had been producing drawing books and cards for
publication since the 1850s. Bartholomew (1822–1898) was born in Boston, but spent time as
a cabinetmaker at Post Mills, Vermont. He returned to Boston to study art, and soon began a
nearly 20-year career as a teacher of drawing in Boston’s English High School and the Girls
High and Normal School, beginning his efforts there in the early 1850s. Bartholomew, now
a painter whose major interest was in representational drawing, adapted his books to the in-
dustrial drawing movement, helping them maintain an influence beyond New England. Battles
between Woolworth, Ainsworth, and Company and J. R. Osgood, who had begun publishing
Walter Smith’s drawing books, testify to the importance of the potential market for school
drawing books. For a number of months accusations flew between the two parties. However, as
Smith gained a firmer foothold in Massachusetts by way of his professional positions, disputes
between his publisher and the publisher of Bartholomew’s drawing books diminished. For a
short period Smith’s confrontations over textbooks subsided, but then turned volatile in another
direction (Bennett, 1926; Efland, 1985a; Korzenik, 1985; Wygant, 1983).
Walter Smith’s editor, John S. Clark, severed ties with J. R. Osgood and Company in
1874, to join the publishing firm of L. Prang and Company. The Prang Company purchased
the publication rights to Smith’s popular American Textbooks for Art Education, which were
published in a range of formats by Prang and Company beginning in 1875. In the next half-
decade, the publication partnership of Louis Prang and Walter Smith solidified their hold on the
very profitable art education market. Korzenik (1985) has described it in these terms: “Fortunes
were to be made on the orders coming in from all the states for Walter Smith’s books, drawing
cards, and drawing models, and up to 1882, Smith had a virtual monopoly, shared only by his
publisher” (p. 240) (Korzenik, 1985; Marzio, 1976; Wygant, 1983).
With great sums of money to be secured and power to be grasped, Prang and Smith’s rela-
tionship was at loggerheads, even as early as 1876. The disputes between author and publisher
grew more vehement and vocal through the late 1870s, as each attempted to establish a more
secure financial foundation, at the other’s expense. In the days just prior to Smith’s dismissal
from his position as Director of Drawing for the Public Schools of Boston in the spring of 1881,
confrontations between Smith and Prang were featured in Boston newspapers, supporting in-
terpretations that Prang may have helped force Smith out of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts
Drawing Act of 1870 helped to cultivate an environment wherein drawing education was viewed
as a lucrative commodity. The open competition demonstrated between differing ideologies
and practices of drawing instruction is evidence of the great value authors and publishing
companies placed on this educational market that was expanding throughout the United States
and Canada (Chalmers, 2000a; Korzenik, 1985; Stankiewicz, 1986; Wygant, 1983).
Drawing Education in Other States

Passage of “An Act Relating to Free Instruction in Drawing” provided the motivation and
model for other state legislatures. The states of Maine, in February 1871, and New York, in
May 1875, established laws requiring that drawing be instituted as a curricular subject in the
public schools of these states. In the year following passage of drawing education legislation
in New York, lawmakers in Vermont enacted legislation establishing free-hand drawing as a
required subject of study in public schools. Drawing instruction continued to gain attention in
the public schools of other New England and eastern states throughout the final quarter of the
19th century, even though many states did not enact legislation either permitting or requiring
drawing as a subject of study for students in their public schools. Between 1870 and 1907,
however, lawmakers in 12 states established drawing as a required subject of study in public
school. Through this same period, drawing was approved as a public school subject by cities
or towns in 31 other states (Commissioner of Education, 1882; Clarke, 1885; Cubberley, 1934;
Saunders, 1976).
WHY WAS ART EDUCATION IMPORTANT IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED,

URBAN SOCIETY OF LATE 19TH CENTURY NORTH AMERICA?
As the 19th century drew to a close, there were significant changes in North American com-
munities. Patterns of social life were altered by rapid industrialization, the growth of cities, the
arrival of new immigrants, and increasing numbers of women who joined new immigrants and
others in the industrial workforce. The forms of art education that emerged at the end of the
century reflected and, to some degree, shaped the changes that occurred in social life. Manual
training, arts and crafts, design and composition, picture study, the kindergarten movement,
and early experiments in progressive education were both protests and accommodations to the
conditions of industrialized, urban society.
Manual Training
Like industrial drawing, manual training was introduced into schools in response to calls for
more “practical” forms of education. From the perspective of businessmen who supported it,
manual training was a form of vocational education that would prepare students for work in
mills and factories. From the perspective of educators, however, manual training was conceived
as a form of general education. In the 1880s, educators who supported manual training argued
that it was not “trade training,” or preparation for particular forms of work. They argued
that students would develop hand and eye coordination by learning to use tools for working
with wood and metal. The skills gained through manual training would be beneficial for all
students, whatever their vocational destination in life (Cremin, 1961; Fisher, 1967; Kliebard,
1999; Stamp, 1970).
In principle, manual training was beneficial for all students, but in practice it was most often
provided for the children of First People nations, African American children, the children
of new immigrants, and working-class children. Some children were deemed more in need
of manual training than others to develop character and prepare them for work. Typically,
both moral and economic reasons were given for establishing manual training programs in
public and private schools; however, in the boarding schools that were established for African
American and Native students, an expectation that the institutions should be self-supporting
sometimes took precedence over students’ education. In such cases, manual training consisted
of little more than the manual labor needed to sustain the institutions. In boarding schools
organized on the “half-and-half” plan, students attended classes in the mornings and spent
afternoons performing the same manual chores, again and again, in the schools’ shops, fields,
and laundries. Boarding schools stripped away students’ Native cultures, including their art
forms. Native art forms were not included in the curricula of boarding schools until after the
turn of the 20th century (Adams, 1995; Anderson, 1988; Chalmers, 2000b; Coleman, 1993;
Kliebard, 1999; Lazerson, 1971; Miller, 1996; Spring, 2001; Titley, 1986).
In practice, manual training was also shaped by assumptions about gender roles, along
with assumptions about race and class. As many public schools began to offer classes in
woodworking and metal work for boys, girls began to receive instruction in cooking and sewing.
Over time, as educators began to see vocational training as a central goal of schooling, many
public schools established programs for girls in home economics, called “domestic science” or
“household arts.” Such programs were based on an assumption that all girls, whatever else they
might do temporarily, were destined by nature to be homemakers. The establishment of home
economics programs at the turn of the 20th century was especially significant in the context
of urban industrial society, because increasing numbers of women were leaving home to enter
the industrial workforce. As a form of vocational preparation, home economics programs had
more to do with preserving nostalgic ideals of home and family than with preparing women
for the contemporary world of work (Kessler-Harris, 1982; Powers, 1992; Rury, 1991; Tyack
& Hansot, 1990).

When manual training was first introduced into North American schools in the 1880s,
most educators were resistant to the idea of vocational education. By the turn of the century,
however, many of them came to see not only manual training but also all of public schooling
as preparation for work. At the same time that views about the purpose of education were
changing, the nature of work in industrial society was changing as well. With the development
of new technology and assembly line methods of production, workers no longer needed the
kinds of knowledge and skills that might be developed through manual training programs.
Instead of hand and eye coordination and qualities such as self-direction, the kinds of “skills”
industrial workers needed were an ability to follow orders and to perform simple, repetitive
tasks. Increasingly, educators joined businessmen in criticizing manual training at the turn of
the century, not because it was vocational preparation, but because it was an anachronistic,
outmoded form of vocational training in an industrial age (Cremin, 1961; Kliebard, 1999;
Lazerson, 1971).
Arts and Crafts

As manual training seemed increasingly outmoded to educators who supported vocational
training, educators who still supported general education and manual training began to join
forces with arts and crafts enthusiasts. In the United States, a successful precedent for joining
manual training with art instruction had already been established by Charles Godfrey Leland
(1824–1903). In 1881, Leland had opened the experimental Industrial Art School in Philadel-
phia to give grammar school students experience with what he called the “minor arts.” The
school’s curriculum included classes in design, modeling, painting, pottery, embroidery, re-
poussé, woodcarving, and carpentry. Leland viewed instruction in crafts as a form of general
vocational preparation. Rather than giving students specific skills that would prepare them for
a particular trade, he held that crafts education taught students how to work.2 Leland’s assis-
tant J. Liberty Tadd (1854–1917) took over as director of the school in 1884, and the school
continued to be acclaimed a success under Tadd’s guidance. The school served as a model for
similar programs in other North American communities, as well as being recognized abroad
(Anderson, 1997; Baker, 1984; Stankiewicz, 2001).
Before establishing the Industrial Art School in Philadelphia, Leland had lived for 10 years
in Britain where he became acquainted with the ideas of John Ruskin (1819–1900) and William
Morris (1834–1896), two of the leading figures in the British Arts and Crafts movement. A
romantic idealist, Ruskin held that a society’s moral character was reflected in the quality of
its art, both fine and applied. Morris adapted Ruskin’s moral aesthetic to a craft ideal, holding
there should be joy and dignity in labor, rather than the fractured, demeaning character of
toil in modern capitalist society.3 Along with a philosophical basis for the British Arts and
Crafts movement, Morris provided examples of the craft ideal in practice with his firm Morris
and Co., organized in 1875, and the Kelmscott Press, founded in 1890 (Boris, 1986; Kaplan,
1987).
2 Leland published The Minor Arts in 1880. His book served as an early reference work on many “lost” crafts for
arts and crafts enthusiasts in Britain and the United States.

3 Ruskin was a prolific writer, publishing dozens of books and pamphlets over the course of his lifetime. His works
were compiled and indexed by E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn in The Works of John Ruskin, published in
39 volumes from 1903 to 1912. Among Ruskin’s most influential works were “The Nature of Gothic,” the sixth chapter
of the second volume of The Stones of Venice, published in 1853; the five volumes of Modern Painters, published
from 1843 to 1860; and The Elements of Drawing, published in 1857. Morris’s works were complied by his daughter
May Morris in The Collected Works of William Morris, published in 24 volumes from 1910 to 1915.
The Arts and Crafts movement in the United States flourished between 1890 and 1910.
Arts and crafts ideals were spread through arts and crafts societies, periodicals, and classes.
Instruction was offered in a variety of settings, including summer schools, design schools, and
settlement houses, as well as public schools. Working people were part of the Arts and Crafts
movement in Britain, but in the United States, the movement was predominately a middle- and
upper-class phenomenon. This blunted the movement’s social criticism and altered many of
its central ideals. In the United States, advocates of arts and crafts included social reformers,
tastemakers who focused on the appearance of objects, and those who saw arts and crafts as a
hobby or leisure activity. Guiding ideals in the American Arts and Crafts movement included
work, taste, and therapy (Amburgy, 1997; Boris, 1986; Lears, 1981).
Jane Addams (1860–1935) and Ellen Gates Starr (1860–1940) were among the social
reformers concerned with work in American society. Addams and Starr were cofounders
of Hull House, a widely acclaimed social settlement in Chicago. Whereas Starr believed it
was important to change the nature of industrial work in order to restore what Morris called
“joy in labor,” Addams focused on changing workers’ perceptions.4 In the Labor Museum
at Hull House, workers could see demonstrations of traditional skills and displays of hand-
crafted objects, and come away with a new understanding of the history of labor that im-
parted significance to their own positions in the modern workforce. In seeking to change the
way workers viewed their work rather than the work itself, Addams’ position was one of
accommodation to modern conditions of labor (Amburgy, 1990; Lears, 1981; Stankiewicz,
1989).
Many of the arts and crafts societies focused on taste. The Society of Arts and Crafts, Boston,
founded in 1897, was an example. Although there were conflicts between social reformers and
tastemakers in the early years of the organization, the conflicts were resolved when a change in
leadership established a firm commitment to exhibition and sales. Other arts and crafts societies
similarly focused on educating consumers’ taste by mounting exhibitions of handcrafted items
and maintaining salesrooms that offered handcrafted items for sale (Boris, 1986; Cooke, 1997;
Kaplan, 1987).
One of the most compelling ideas within the Arts and Crafts movement was a belief that
crafts were primitive, natural activities. As middle-class Americans achieved more wealth
and leisure at the end of the 19th century, they increasingly began to fear they were be-
coming overcivilized, out of touch with “real life.” Plagued by doubts about the reality of
modern life, many came to see arts and crafts as a source of primal, authentic experience.
In this context, handwork came to be viewed as a means of therapeutic rejuvenation (Lears,
1981).
In other contexts, crafts were associated with primitive cultural experience and children’s
development. According to the “culture epoch theory” then popular, children’s development
replicated the stages of development through which the whole human race had passed. Ac-
cording to the theory, early stages of children’s development corresponded to early stages of
racial development. Since decorative arts and traditional crafts were associated with suppos-
edly primitive stages of human history (which included both past cultures and contemporary
cultures, such as those of Native Americans), children were believed to have a natural affinity
for arts and crafts. Charles Godfrey Leland and Arthur Wesley Dow were among those who
applied the culture epoch theory to teaching art (Boris, 1986; Kaplan, 1987; Moffatt, 1977;
Stankiewicz, 2001).
4 Starr’s
views on contemporary work are set out in “Art and Labor,” an article published in the collection Hull-
House Maps and Papers in 1895. Addams’ views appear in “The Art-Work Done by Hull-House, Chicago,” an article
published in the July 1895 issue of Forum. Addams also discusses the significance of art for working people in her
books Democracy and Social Ethics, published in 1902, and Twenty Years at Hull-House, published in 1910.
Design and Composition

Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922) was a key figure in the Arts and Crafts movement at the
turn of the century. Through his work as an artist, a theorist, and a teacher of teachers, Dow
made important contributions to art education that would shape the field for decades to come.
The contributions of Denman Waldo Ross (1853–1935) were equally important, although not
as often recognized in histories of art education. Ross and Dow were similar in emphasizing
formal aspects of art over narrative content, but they differed in the elements and principles of
design they stressed in their theories and their approaches to teaching. Ross’s theory of design
was based on three central principles: balance, rhythm, and harmony. The important elements
in his theory were tones (value and color), measures (size or area), and shapes. For Dow,
the central elements of art were line, color, and notan (light and dark). These elements were
arranged according to five principles of composition: opposition, transition, subordination,
repetition, and symmetry. A general overarching principle was proportion, or good spacing.5
Whereas Ross emphasized studying the past and a thorough preparation of students before
they created original compositions, Dow emphasized originality in students’ work, even the
work of beginners (Green, 1999; Moffatt, 1977; Stankiewicz, 1988, 1990, 2001).
Dow’s own development as an artist had been deeply influenced by the ukiyo-e woodcuts
of Katsushika Hokusai. In his books and teaching, Dow included examples of art from both
eastern and western cultures. He was not alone in his admiration for the art of nonwestern
cultures. By the 1890s, many artists, along with much of the general public, had become
familiar with decorative arts from around the world as a result of the Aesthetic movement.
The Aesthetic Movement

The Aesthetic movement flourished in the United States in the 1870s and 1880s. Like the
Arts and Crafts movement, the Aesthetic movement had originated in Britain as a reaction to
social changes that came with industrialization; however, instead of challenging the structure
of capitalist work relationships, the Aesthetic movement offered a way of believing in the
power of art without the kind of social critiques mounted by Ruskin, Morris, and others. The
Aesthetic movement placed artistic values above ethical ones. Its central ideal was art for art’s
sake, a celebration of universal form and style apart from the historical, social, and moral
contexts in which works of art were created or used. Although the Aesthetic movement was
centered in the decorative arts, it was also apparent in arts such as painting and architecture.
The Aesthetic movement reflected and helped reshape Americans’ ideas about nature, religion,
political economy, and gender in ways that were in keeping with an urban, industrial way of
life (Stein, 1986).
In art education, Aesthetic beliefs had initially been disseminated by the South Kensington
system of teaching drawing and design, brought to North America by Walter Smith. Over
time, elements of both Aestheticism and the Arts and Crafts movement were combined in
textbooks published by the Prang Educational Company in the late 19th and early 20th century
(Stankiewicz, 1992a).
Schoolroom Decoration and Picture Study. In the 1880s and 1890s, Ruskin’s belief
that people’s social environment shaped their taste and character became a rationale for placing
reproductions of art in schoolrooms. In 1883, the Art for Schools Association was founded
5 Ross’s major work on design was his book Theory of Pure Design, published in 1907. Dow’s major work was
Composition, first published in 1899. Composition was one of the most influential books of all time in the field of art
education. It went through twenty editions, with the last one appearing in 1941.
in Britain with Ruskin as president of the association. In the United States, the Boston Public
School Art League was established in 1892. Similar organizations were soon founded in other
American cities. One of the most influential was the Chicago Public School Art Society, estab-
lished in 1894 with Ellen Gates Starr as its first president. In addition to developing students’
character, goals of schoolroom decoration included Americanization of new immigrants, pro-
viding a more home-like atmosphere in schools, and subduing “rough boys” (Boris, 1986;
Dobbs, 1972; Efland, 1990; Finley, 1992; Stankiewicz, 1992a, 2001).
The movement to decorate schools, which became a popular cause in the United States in
the 1890s, soon expanded to include a systematic study of pictures as part of the art education
program in schools. The picture study movement, which lasted from the mid-1890s until
the 1920s, focused on appreciation of masterpieces to develop students’ character and taste.
Moral lessons were based on the subject matter or stories represented in images, and students
were given information about the lives of the artists. In upper grades, students might also
analyze formal qualities. The images used for picture study were typically black and white
or sepia reproductions, created through the halftone process that had recently been perfected.
Reproductions were available from the Prang Educational Company, Perry Prints, and other
suppliers. Books and articles on picture study also supported the picture study movement
(Stankiewicz, 1984).
Professionalization in Art Education

Textbooks, journals, and professional organizations played important roles in strengthening
art education as a profession at the end of the 19th century. In the 1870s, when drawing was
first introduced into many schools, most teachers were not trained to teach art; in fact, teacher
preparation of any sort was still minimal, especially for teachers in the primary and grammar
grades. For this reason, most teachers relied on textbooks to teach various subjects in school
(Cuban, 1993).
As drawing became an established part of school curricula, textbooks for school-based
instruction became available to teachers. Textbooks for schools offered progressive instruction
over 12 grades, a feature that distinguished school series from the drawing books that had been
popular earlier in the century. Walter Smith’s books were one of the first series of textbooks
developed specifically for schools. By the end of the century, however, Smith’s books were
eclipsed by other series published by Prang that combined a pedagogy based on students’
interests with comprehensive content in constructive, representational, and decorative art. As
teachers and art supervisors departed from textbook-driven methods of teaching and began
to create their own art curricula, there were conflicts with textbook publishers such as Prang
(Marzio, 1976; Stankiewicz, 1986, 2001).
Periodicals also played an important role in supporting new movements and keeping teach-
ers and art supervisors informed about developments in art education. The Perry Magazine,
published from 1898 to 1906, helped promote schoolroom decoration and picture study. J. C.
Witter’s journal Art Education, published from 1894 to 1901, covered a range of professional
topics. The School Arts Book, first published in 1901 as the Applied Arts Book, is still being
published today. Then as now, it was an important source of professional information for art
educators. Henry Turner Bailey (1865–1931), one of the founders of the journal, served as
editor of School Arts from 1903 to 1917. Bailey influenced the course of art education at the
turn of the century and beyond through his work as editor, as well as his many books and
articles on art education (Efland, 1990; MacDonald, 1997; Stankiewicz, 2001).
Professional organizations were another means by which leaders in art education helped
shape the direction of the field in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1883 the National Edu-
cational Association established its Department of Art Education. Members of the department
presented many reports on the status of American art education, including the influential re-
port of the Committee of Ten on Elementary Art Education, completed in 1902. In 1893 two
other important organizations were established: the Manual Training Teachers Association of
America and the Western Drawing Teachers Association. After several evolutions in name
and membership, the Manual Training Teachers Association joined forces with art teachers
in eastern states and eventually became the Eastern Arts Association. Similarly, the Western
Drawing Teachers Association combined with manual training teachers in the Midwest and
evolved into the Western Arts Association (Efland, 1990; Jacobs & Francis, 1985; Wygant,
1997).
The Kindergarten Movement and Progressive Education

The kindergarten movement originated in the work of the German philosopher and educator
Frederich Froebel (1782–1852). Seeking to reform current educational practices that were
based on memorization, punishment, and discipline, Froebel designed a curriculum based on
play. Educational activities in his kindergarten were structured around a series of progressive
“gifts and occupations” that taught young children concepts of universal form and number
(Brosterman, 1997; Efland, 1990).
Elizabeth Peabody (1804–1894) opened the first English-speaking kindergarten in the
United States in 1860. The first training school for kindergarten teachers was established
in St. Louis in 1873. One of the most influential centers for promoting the kindergarten and
Froebelian principles was the Chicago Kindergarten Club, established in 1884 by Alice Harvey
Putnam (1841–1919), one of Peabody’s students, and Putnam’s student Elizabeth Harrison
(1849–1927). For the most part, economically privileged women were leaders of the kinder-
garten movement. They established privately supported kindergartens that, over time, came to
be absorbed into public school systems in many cities. The role of privileged women in promot-
ing kindergartens was similar to the role played by privileged men who established privately
funded centers for manual training that eventually became part of the public school system
in cities such as Chicago. Some advocates of kindergarten education claimed that young chil-
dren’s working with Froebelian gifts and occupations was a foundation for the kind of practical
education offered by manual training in the grammar grades (Efland, 1990; Finnegan, 1997;
Lazerson, 1971; Saunders, 1990; Snyder, 1972).
An emphasis on active learning and practical education was also apparent in the early stages
of the progressive movement in education. Francis Wayland Parker (1837–1902) and John
Dewey (1859–1952) were two of the prominent figures in progressive education in Chicago
at the end of the 19th century. Instruction in art was an important part of the curriculum in
the practice school affiliated with Parker’s Cook County Normal School, as it was in Dewey’s
Laboratory School.6 By psychologizing the value of art in students’ lives, Parker and Dewey
were forerunners of modernist conceptions of art education (Amburgy, 1990; Korzenik, 1992;
Sidelnick, 1995).
Women’s Contributions to Art Education. Women were not only the leaders of the
kindergarten movement. Through their work in other kinds of voluntary organizations, in-
cluding settlement houses, arts and crafts societies, and women’s clubs, they made significant
contributions to many aspects of art and education in the late 19th and early 20th century.
6 Parker’s views on education were published in his Talks on Pedagogics in 1894. Dewey’s major works on
education at the turn of the century include The School and Society, published in 1899, and The Child and the
Curriculum, published in 1902. Schools of Tomorrow, written with his daughter Evelyn Dewey, was published in
1915. Dewey’s major philosophical treatise on education, Democracy and Education, was published in 1916.
Although much of the written history of 19th-century art education has focused on the ideas
and accomplishments of men, feminine accomplishments in the form of ornamental education

helped lay a foundation for art in public schools. Beliefs that women are naturally suited to
teach the young led to the reality that most K-12 art teachers have been women, contributing
to a lower status for art in society. The role of women in art education remains a site for critical
historical research (Blair, 1994; Boris, 1986; Finley, 1992; Stankiewicz, 1989, 2001; Stein,
1986).
HOW DID ART EDUCATION IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY DIFFER

FROM ART EDUCATION A CENTURY EARLIER?
By the beginning of the 20th century, art educators had developed a professional self-
consciousness that set them apart from classroom teachers and from artists. The early histories
of art education written by Clarke (1885) and Bailey (1893, 1900) located art education in
formal, often publicly funded, institutions for education, ignoring the varied mixture of in-
formal and formal delivery systems found at the beginning of the century. Art education was
located in the political context of northeastern industrial expansion and the cultural context
of European academic art traditions. Art educators themselves, civic leaders and capitalists,
philanthropists and politicians, were drawn as the chief stakeholders, though women were
active in the background actually delivering art instruction. Walter Smith was the great man
centering the composition, while systematic art education for schoolchildren, industrial work-
ers, and teachers radiated outward from his position as expert. Stacks of sequential drawing
books in the corners of the canvas bore the imprint of publishers rather than artist–authors and
were designated for schools rather than individuals, families, and schools.
By the end of the 19th century, art education had become both a reflection of cultural
hierarchy and a means of reproducing that hierarchy (Levine, 1988). The rhetoric focused on
social control of the masses through art, with little more than lip service to Franklin’s belief in
upward mobility through art education. The aesthetic didacticism that had argued for beneficial
connections between art and life was being displaced by aesthetic distance, formal design, and
the isolation of art from life. The rich, if sometimes overwhelming, range of motives found at the
beginning of the century was replaced by advocacy for art as a tasteful retreat from pressures of
modern life (Stankiewicz, 1997). On the other hand, art educators were committed to bridging
the gap between art and life. Growing recognition that children’s drawings served different
functions than adult art-making resonated with earlier beliefs that art contributed to intellectual
as well as emotional growth. In kindergartens, museums, and settlement houses, as well as
in many schools, young people were introduced to visual art as one element for improving
life.
WHAT ARE SOME CRUCIAL QUESTIONS AND TOPICS

FOR FUTURE HISTORICAL RESEARCH?
In spite of the number of publications relevant to the history of 19th century art education
produced during the past 3 decades, more research can be done. A number of the strongest
dissertations in this area have not been followed by more accessible articles or books. Many of
the most provocative sources have been researched and written by non-art educators. More than
other research methods, historical research benefits from interdisciplinarity. The references
for this chapter include sources from art history; history of education; social, cultural, and
economic history; gender and ethnic studies, as well as American studies. These secondary
sources can fund more comprehensive interpretations of primary source material or be mined
for suggestive topics.

What kinds of art education existed in venture schools, seminaries, and academies early in
the 19th century? Who sought this kind of art instruction and why? How were drawing books
actually used and what did one learn from them? How did systematic art education develop in
cities other than Boston? What were the relationships among art museums, schools of art and
design, and public school art programs? How have publishers of textbooks and reproductions
supported or constrained art teaching? What forms of art education were available to First
People nations, African Americans, and immigrants? What roles have institutions for adult
education, such as Chautauquas and correspondence schools, played in general art education?
What impacts did world’s fairs and similar cultural expositions have on dissemination of ideas
in art education? How was 19th century art education affected by technological and cultural
changes that contributed to the emergence of popular and visual culture?
More detailed, personalized studies based on archival research are needed to address these
and other questions. At the same time, art education history is entering a state where larger
syntheses and cross-cultural comparisons can begin to be done. We are just beginning to move
beyond the halcyon days of Walter Smith and into the scarcely charted waters, both calm and
crashing, which will help us better understand how art educators and art education have come
to be as they are.
REFERENCES
Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for extinction: American Indians and the boarding school experience, 1875–1928.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Alexander, E. P. (1983). Museum masters: Their museums and their influence. Nashville, TN: The American Associ-
ation for State and Local History.
Alexander, E. P. (1987). Early American museums from collections of curiosities to popular education. The Interna-
tional Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, 337–351.
Amburgy, P. M. (1990). Culture for the masses: Art education and progressive reforms, 1880–1917. In D. Soucy &
M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 103–114). Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association.
Amburgy, P. M. (1997). Arts and crafts education in Chicago, 1890–1920. In A. A. Anderson, Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.),
History of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium (pp. 384–388). University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Anderson, A. A., Jr. (1997). Charles Godfrey Leland: Pioneer crafts educator. In A. A. Anderson, Jr., & P. E. Bolin
(Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium (pp. 367–373).
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the south, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill, NC, and London: University
of North Carolina Press.
Andrus, L. F. (1977). Measure and design in American painting, 1760–1860. New York: Garland.
Axelrod, P. (1997). The promise of schooling: Education in Canada, 1800–1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bailey, H. T. (1893). Industrial drawing in the public schools of Massachusetts: A sketch of its history. Henry Turner
Bailey Papers, Box 13. Special Collections, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon.
Bailey, H. T. (1900). A sketch of the history of public art instruction in Massachusetts. Boston: Wright & Potter.
Baker, D. W. (1985). J. Liberty Tadd, who are you? Studies in Art Education, 26, 75–85.
Barnhill, G. B., Korzenik, D., & Sloat, C. F. (Eds.). (1997). The cultivation of artists in 19th-century America.
Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society.
Belshe, F. B. (1946). A history of art education in the public schools of the United States. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Yale University.
Bennett, C. A. (1926). History of manual and industrial education up to 1870. Peoria, IL: Author.
Bermingham, A. (2000). Learning to draw: Studies in the cultural history of a polite and useful art. New Haven: Yale
University Press, published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art.
Billings, K. L. (1987). Sophisticated proselytizing: Charles Callahan Perkins and the Boston School Committee.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Massachusetts College of Art, Boston.
Blair, K. J. (1994). The torchbearers: Women and their amateur arts associations in America, 1890–1930. Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press.

Bolger, D. (1976). The education of the American artist. In In this academy: The Pennsylvania Academy of the
Fine Arts, 1805–1876: A special bicentennial exhibition organized by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
(pp. 51–74). Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
Bolin, P. E. (1985). The influence of industrial policy on enactment of the 1870 Massachusetts Free Instruction in
Drawing Act. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Penn State Conference
(pp. 102–107). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Bolin, P. E. (1986). Drawing interpretation: An examination of the 1870 Massachusetts, “Act Relating to Free Instruc-
tion in Drawing.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2425A.
Bolin, P. E. (1990). The Massachusetts Drawing Act of 1870: Industrial mandate or democratic maneuver? In D. Soucy
& M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 59–68). Reston, VA: National Art
Education Association.
Bolin, P. E. (1995). Overlooked and obscured through history: The legislative bill proposed to amend the Massachusetts
Drawing Act of 1870. Studies in Art Education, 37(1), 55–64.
Bolin, P. E. (1997). The “National Peace Jubilee and Musical Festival,” June 1869: Historical context for the petitioners
of drawing education. In A. A. Anderson, Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the
Third Penn State International Symposium (pp. 347–354). University Park, PA: Art Education Program, School of
Visual Arts.
Boris, E. (1986). Art and labor: Ruskin, Morris, and the craftsman ideal in America. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Briggs, P. S. (1995). The influence of Unitarianism on the inclusion of art education in the common schools of
Massachusetts, 1825–1870. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Burns, S. (1996). Inventing the modern artist. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bushman, R. L. (1992). The refinement of America: Persons, houses, cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Chalmers, F. G. (1985a). South Kensington and the colonies: David Blair of New Zealand and Canada. Studies in Art
Education, 26(2), 69–74.
Chalmers, F. G. (1985b). South Kensington and the colonies II: The influence of Walter Smith in Canada. In B. Wilson
& H. Hoffa (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Penn State Conference (pp. 108-112). Reston, VA:
National Art Education Association.
Chalmers, F. G. (1990). South Kensington in the farthest colony. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing
the past: Essays on art education (pp. 71–85). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Chalmers, F. G. (1998a). Teaching drawing in 19th-century Canada—Why? In K. Freedman & F. Hernández (Eds.),
Curriculum, culture, and art education: Comparative perspectives (pp. 47–58). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Chalmers, F. G. (1998b). Women in the 19th-century art world: Schools of art and design for women in London and
Philadelphia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Chalmers, F. G. (2000a). A 19th century government drawing master: The Walter Smith reader. Reston, VA: National
Art Education Association.
Chalmers, F. G. (2000b). Art education in “Indian” residential schools in British Columbia. Canadian Review of Art
Education, 27, 21–35.
Clarke, I. E. (1885). Art and industry (Vol. 1) (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 209). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Coleman, M. C. (1993). American Indian children at school, 1850–1930. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Commissioner of Education. (1882). Report of the Commissioner of Education for the year 1880. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Cooke, E. S., Jr. (1997). Talking or working: The conundrum of moral aesthetics in Boston’s arts and crafts movement.
In Inspiring reform: Boston’s arts and crafts movement (pp. 17–31). Wellesley, MA: Davis Museum and Cultural
Center, Wellesley College; New York: distributed by Harry N. Abrams.
Cott. N. F. (1977). The bonds of womanhood: Woman’s sphere in New England, 1780–1835. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876–1957. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Cremin, L. A. (1980). American education: The national experience, 1783–1876. New York: Harper & Row.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cubberley, E. P. (1934). Public education in the United States: A study and interpretation of American educational
history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, E. B. (1992). Training the eye and the hand: Drawing books in 19th-century America (Doctoral Dissertation,
Columbia University). Dissertation Abstracts International (Order Number 9313576).

Davis, E. B. (1996). American drawing books and their impact on Winslow Homer. Winterthur Portfolio, 31(2/3),
141–163.
Dean, M. S. (1923/1924). A brief history of the Massachusetts Normal Art School 1873 to 1923–’24. Boston:
Massachusetts Normal Art School.
de Angeli Walls, N. (1993). Art, industry, and women’s education: The Philadelphia School of Design for Women,
1848–1932. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
de Angeli Walls, N. (1994). Educating women for art and commerce: The Philadelphia School of Art and Design,
1848-1932. History of Education Quarterly, 34(3), 329–355.
Dobbs, S. M. (1972). Attic temples and beauty nooks: The schoolroom decoration movement. Intellect, 101, 43–45.
Douglas, A. (1977). The feminization of American culture. New York: Avon Books.
Efland, A. D. (1983). School art and its social origins. Studies in Art Education, 24(3), 149–157.
Efland, A. D. (1985a). Art and education for women in 19th century Boston. Studies in Art Education, 26(3), 133–40.
Efland, A. D. (1985b). The introduction of music and drawing in the Boston schools: Two studies of educational
reform. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Penn State Conference
(pp. 113–124). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Efland, A. D. (1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Efland, A. D., & Soucy, D. (1991). A persistent interpretation: Education historiography and the legacy of Isaac
Edwards Clarke. History of Education Quarterly, 31(4), 489–511.
Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W., & Ecker, D. W. (1966). Readings in art education. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.
Fahlman, B. (1997). John Ferguson Weir: The labor of art. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Fane, D. (Ed.). (1996). Converging cultures: Art & identity in Spanish America. New York: The Brooklyn Museum
in association with Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Finley, K. D. (1992). Cultural monitors: Clubwomen and public art instruction in Chicago, 1890–1920. In P.
M. Amburgy, D. Soucy, M. A. Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), History of art education: Pro-
ceedings of the Second Penn State Conference, 1989 (pp. 252–258). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Finnegan, J. E. (1997). Elizabeth Harrison and the kindergarten: Art education as social reform. In A. A. Anderson,
Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium
(pp. 113–119). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Fisher, B. (1967). Industrial education: American ideals and institutions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Flynt, S. L. (1988). Ornamental and useful accomplishments: Schoolgirl education and Deerfield Academy 1800–
1830. Deerfield, MA: Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association and Deerfield Academy.
Green, H. B. (1948). The introduction of art as a general education subject in American Schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University.
Green, H. B. (1966). Walter Smith: The forgotten man. Art Education, 19(1), 3–9.
Green, N. E. (1999). Arthur Wesley Dow: American arts & crafts. American Art Review, 11, 214–221.
Hail, B. A. (1987). Traditional Native American art of the plains and northern woodlands. In G. C. Schwartz, Patterns
of life, patterns of art (pp. 9–22). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Haney, J. P. (Ed.). (1908). Art education in the public schools of the United States. New York: American Art Annual.
Harris, J. C. (1976). Collegiate collections 1776–1876. South Hadley, MA: Mount Holyoke College.
Harris, N. (1962). The gilded age revisited: Boston and the museum movement. American Quarterly, 14, 545–566.
Harris, N. (1982). The artist in American society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, R., & Francis, B. D. (1985). Ninety years of the Western Arts Association. Art Education, 38(4), 32–35, 37.
Johns, E. (1980). Drawing instruction at Central High School and its impact on Thomas Eakins. Winterthur Portfolio,
15(Summer), 139–147.
Kaplan, W. (1987). “The art that is life”: The arts and crafts movement in America, 1875–1920. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kessler-Harris, A. (1982). Out to work: A history of wage-earning women in the United States (especially pp. 171–179).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (1999). Schooled to work: Vocationalism and the American curriculum, 1876–1946. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Korzenik, D. (1985). Drawn to art: A 19th-century American dream. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Korzenik, D. (1992). Foreign ideas for American originals: Francis Wayland Parker. In D. Thistlewood (Ed.), Histories
of art and design: Cole to Coldstream (pp. 38–54). Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, National Society for
Education in Art and Design.
Korzenik, D. (1999, March). Becoming an art teacher c. 1800. Art Education, 52(2), 6–13.
Lazerson, M. (1971). Origins of the urban school: Public education in Massachusetts, 1870–1915. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Lears, T. J. J. (1981). No place of grace: Antimodernism and the transformation of American culture, 1880–1920.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Levine, L. W. (1988). Highbrow/lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
MacDonald, B. L. (1997). The Perry Magazine for School and Home (1898–1906): An analysis of its historical location
within the schoolroom decoration and picture study movement. In A. A. Anderson, Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History
of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium (pp. 404–420). University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Martinez, K., & Talbott, P. (Eds.). (2000). Philadelphia’s cultural landscape: The Sartain family legacy. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Marzio, P. C. (1976). The art crusade: An analysis of American drawing manuals, 1820–1860. Washington: Smith-
sonian Institution Press.
Marzio, P. C. (1979). The democratic art. Boston: David R. Godine, Published in association with the Amon Carter
Museum of Western Art, Fort Worth.
McVitty, L. F. (1934). The rise of art education in the United States. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Metropolitan Museum of Art. (1990). Mexico: Splendors of thirty centuries. New York Author.
Miller, J. R. (1996). Shingwauk’s vision: A history of Native residential schools. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Miller, L. B. (1966). Patrons and patriotism: The encouragement of the fine arts in the United States, 1790–1860.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moffatt, F. C. (1977). Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Parker, Rozsika. (1984). The subversive stitch: Embroidery and the making of the feminine. New York: Routledge.
Powers, J. B. (1992). The “girl question” in education: Vocational education for young women in the progressive era.
London/Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Ring, B. (1983). Let virtue be a guide to thee: Needlework in the education of Rhode Island women, 1730–1830.
Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society.
Rury, J. L. (1991). Education and women’s work: Female schooling and the division of labor in urban America,
1870–1930. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Saunders, R. J. (1976). Art, industrial art, and the 200 years war. Art Education, 29(1), 5–8.
Saunders, R. J. (1990). Elizabeth P. Peabody’s quest for art in moral education. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewicz
(Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 35–45). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Secretary of the Commonwealth. (1870). Acts and resolves passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, in the year
1870. Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printer.
Sheath, N. C. C. (1982). Some events in the life of Walter Smith. No location: Author.
Sidelnick, M. (1995). Colonel Francis Wayland Parker: Legacy of an artist-teacher. Art Education, 48(6), 18–22.
Smith, P. (1992). A troublesome comedy: The causes of Walter Smith’s dismissal. In P. M. Amburgy, D. Soucy,
M. A. Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Second Penn State
Conference, 1989 (pp. 269–273). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Smith, P. (1996). The history of American art education: Learning about art in American schools. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Smyth, C. H., & Lukehart, P. N. (Eds.). (1993). The early years of art history in the United States. Princeton, NJ:
Department of Art History and Archaeology, Princeton University.
Snyder, A. (1972). Dauntless women in childhood education 1856–1931. Washington, DC: Association for Childhood
Education International.
Spring, J. (2001). The American school 1642–2000 (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Soucy, D. (1990). A history of art education histories. In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past:
Essays on art education (pp. 3–31). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Stamp, R. M. (1970). Evolving patterns of education: English-Canada from the 1870s to 1914. In J. D. Wilson, R. M.
Stamp, & L.-P. Audet (Eds.), Canadian education: A history (pp. 314–336). Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1984). “The eye is a nobler organ”: Ruskin and American art education. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 18(2), 51–64.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1985). A picture age: Reproductions in picture study. Studies in Art Education, 26, 86–92.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1986). Drawing book wars. Visual Arts Research, 12(2), 59–72.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1988). Form, truth, and emotion: Transatlantic influences on formalist aesthetics. Journal of Art
and Design Education, 7, 81–95.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1989). Art at Hull House, 1889–1901: Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr. Woman’s Art Journal,
10, 35–39.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1990). Rules and invention: From ornament to design in art education. In D. Soucy & M. A.
Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 89–101). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1992a). Barbarian or civilised: Ellen Gates Starr, T. C. Horsfall and the Chicago Public School
Art Society. In D. Thistlewood (Ed.), Histories of art and design: Cole to Coldstream (pp. 55–68). Harlow, Essex,
England: Longman, National Society for Education in Art and Design.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1992b). From the aesthetic movement to the arts and crafts movement. Studies in Art Education,
33, 165–173.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1997). The celestial city of culture: Henry Turner Bailey’s “City of Refuge.” In A. A. Anderson,
Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium
(pp.427–433). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (1999). Chromo-civilization and the genteel tradition (An essay on the social value of art education).
Studies in Art Education, 40(2), 101–113.
Stankiewicz, M. A. (2000). Embodied conceptions and refined taste: Drawing enters the Lowell schools. Visual Arts
Research, 26(2), 1–14.
Stankiewicz, Mary Ann (2001). Roots of art education practice. Worcester, MA: Davis Publications.
Stein, R. B. (1986). Artifact as ideology: The aesthetic movement in its American cultural context. In D. B. Burke,
In pursuit of beauty (pp. 23–51). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Stevens, E. W., Jr. (1995). The grammar of the machine: Technical literacy and early industrial expansion in the
United States. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stirling, J. C. (1997). The politics of drawing: Theory into practice: Walter Smith’s influence in post-secondary Quebec
industrial art schools, 1876–91. In A. A. Anderson, Jr., & P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of
the Third Penn State International Symposium (pp. 355–366). University Park, PA: Art Education Program, School
of Visual Arts.
Storr, A. V. F. (1992). Ut pictura rhetorica: The oratory of the visual arts in the early republic and the formation of
American cultural values, 1790–1840. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
Strazdes, D. (1979). The amateur aesthetic and the draughtsman in early America. Archives of American Art Journal,
19(1), 15–23.
Thirty-fourth annual report of the Massachusetts Board of Education. (1871). Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers.
Thornton, T. P. (1996). Handwriting in America: A cultural history. New Haven: Yale.
Titley, E. B. (1986). Indian industrial schools in western Canada. In N. M. Sheehan, J. D. Wilson, & D. C. Jones
(Eds.), Schools in the west: Essays in Canadian educational history (pp. 133–153). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises
Limited.
Tompkins, C. (1973). Merchants and masterpieces. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1990). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American schools. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Vlach, J. M. (1988). Plain painters: Making sense of American folk art. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Waller, B. (1992). Aping their betters: Art appreciation and social class. In P. M. Amburgy, D. Soucy, M. A.
Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Second Penn State
Conference, 1989 (pp. 16–27). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Winkelman, R. J. (1990). Art education in the non-public schools of Pennsylvania, 1720–1870. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Wood, B. A., & Soucy, D. (1990). From old to new Scotland: 19th century links between morality and art education.
In D. Soucy & M. A. Stankiewicz (Eds.), Framing the past: Essays on art education (pp. 47–56). Reston, VA:
National Art Education Association.
Woolworth, Ainsworth, and Company. (1873). Drawing in the public schools. A brief history of its origin and progress.
New York: Author.
Wygant, F. (1983). Art in American schools in the 19th century. Cincinnati: Interwood Press.
Wygant, F. (1993). School art in American culture 1820–1970. Cincinnati: Interwood Press.
Wygant, F. (1997). The N.E.A. Committee of 10: The good, the true, and the beautiful. In A. A. Anderson, Jr.,
& P. E. Bolin (Eds.), History of art education: Proceedings of the Third Penn State International Symposium
(pp. 389–396). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Zeller, T. (1989). The historical and philosophical foundations of art museum education in America. In S. Mayer &
N. Berry (Eds.), Museum education: History, theory, and practice (pp. 10–89). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.

Eisner, E. - Day, M. Ed. 2004 Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. New Jersey, USA NAEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eisner, E. - Day, M. Ed. 2004 Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. New Jersey, USA NAEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.

Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education

Elliot W. Eisner, Michael D. Day

Questioning the Past: Contexts, Functions, and Stakeholders

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

Director, Editorial: Lane Akers

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.

Copyright c 2004 by Elliot W. Eisner and Michael D. Day

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 1-4106-0993-6 Master e-book ISBN

Mary Ann Stankiewicz

the diversity of Canadian experiences (Pearse, 1997).

WHAT SOCIAL FUNCTIONS DID ART EDUCATION SERVE

Theoretical and Rhetorical Foundations

WHAT FORMS OF ART EDUCATION WERE AVAILABLE

Collegiate Art Education

WHERE AND WHEN DID ART EDUCATION ENTER PUBLIC

Massachusetts’ Petition for Drawing Instruction

Institutionalizing Drawing Instruction

Massachusetts Normal Art School

Walter Smith’s Departure

Industrial Drawing Textbooks and Controversies

Drawing Education in Other States

WHY WAS ART EDUCATION IMPORTANT IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED,

URBAN SOCIETY OF LATE 19TH CENTURY NORTH AMERICA?

& Hansot, 1990).

Arts and Crafts

arts and crafts enthusiasts in Britain and the United States.

Design and Composition

The Aesthetic Movement

Professionalization in Art Education

The Kindergarten Movement and Progressive Education

and accomplishments of men, feminine accomplishments in the form of ornamental education

HOW DID ART EDUCATION IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY DIFFER

WHAT ARE SOME CRUCIAL QUESTIONS AND TOPICS

for suggestive topics.

ton: Indiana University Press.

Columbia University). Dissertation Abstracts International (Order Number 9313576).

Harvard University Press.

You might also like